Anything else just isn't Enterprise enough.

OK, now they've got the email

Get the facts not the NYT BS.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/10/new-york-times-never-read-russia-email-donald-trump-jr/
Permalink Pestular Croaker 
July 11th, 2017 11:49am
Try again. That was yesterday. They read and quoted the email today.
Permalink Shylock 
July 11th, 2017 11:50am
NYT source is "three anonymous sources with 'knowledge' of the email".

The NYT does not have an email. The anonymous sources have not seen the email either.

Shylock: HEY EVERYBODY NOW THEYVE GOT THE ACTUAL EMAIL

Shylock is lying.
Permalink Pestular Croaker 
July 11th, 2017 11:50am
Did you read the OP?
Permalink Shylock 
July 11th, 2017 11:53am
This is on their front page of the web site:

"    Messages reviewed by The Times offer a vivid unspooling of how the meeting with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer came about last year."

"    They show just how eager Donald Trump Jr. was to accept what he was explicitly told was the Russian government’s help in his father’s campaign against Hillary Clinton."
Permalink Shylock 
July 11th, 2017 11:55am
Yeah it has emails which DJT Jr himself released on Twitter and which prove the NYT claims are lies.

You're continuing to claim NYT found and saw some emails.

The only legitimate source so far has been DJT Jr's publicly released open transparent info about the truth, which proves the NYT was lying about seeing the emails.
Permalink Pestular Croaker 
July 11th, 2017 11:55am
"the meeting with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer came about last year."

She wasn't a Kremlin connected lawyer. She was a lawyer hired by the Hillary campaign to engage in an inane catfish operation.
Permalink Pestular Croaker 
July 11th, 2017 11:56am
No sticks with a troll harder than you do Idiot.

If you admitted you were lying finally, what do you think would happen to you? Would you dissolve in a puddle like the Wicked Witch?
Permalink Shylock 
July 11th, 2017 11:56am
There is no proof there. Zip, zero, nada.
Permalink Yoda 
July 11th, 2017 12:08pm
Shylock is a piece of shit
Permalink Ruseman 
July 11th, 2017 12:21pm
The Independent article seems legit.
Permalink Lotti Fuehrscheim 
July 11th, 2017 12:28pm
So Hillary used UK secret service to allege Trump using Russian secret service.
Permalink Lotti Fuehrscheim 
July 11th, 2017 12:30pm
>Shylock is a piece of shit

I love your debating style Ruseman.

Here's the actual email trail, posted by Jr.:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/11/us/politics/document-Donaldtrumpjr.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Permalink Shylock 
July 11th, 2017 12:36pm
Well, I would have made a comparison to Hitler, but you know that's a little extreme and offensive since you are Jewish.  So I'll just go with the "ad hominem" approach instead to debate.
Permalink Ruseman 
July 11th, 2017 3:57pm
How long you going to keep this troll going Ruseman?

Or, are you going to buy a machine gun and join the rebels when Trump is impeached?
Permalink Shylock 
July 11th, 2017 4:06pm
I really do think Trump has done a great job
Permalink Ruseman 
July 11th, 2017 4:08pm
I agree with Ruseman. We do not want to world to love us. We want the world to fear us. They need to fear when ripping us off. They need to fear when they take advantage of us. And they need to fear when they don't deal with us fairly.
Permalink WorldRoverski 
July 11th, 2017 4:10pm
Honestly? Wow. You really are a stupid asshole.

A con man's dream.
Permalink Shylock 
July 11th, 2017 4:11pm
Shylock,

I make a deal with you. In 4 years and things won't improve. You and I can vote in a Democrat.
Permalink WorldRoverski 
July 11th, 2017 4:12pm
I think it may be treason if you sell information to Russia, but to buy information? I can't see that as treason. It is just using the market. Doesn't the White House buy Russian caviare? Or do they prefer Iranian?
Permalink Lotti Fuehrscheim 
July 11th, 2017 4:12pm
"I think it may be treason if you sell information to Russia, but to buy information? I can't see that as treason."

Several things come to mind.

One: how can they know they're being manipulated by Russian government? Knowingly putting yourself in such position could be seen as treason.

Second: how were they going to pay for the information?
Permalink Yoda 
July 11th, 2017 4:21pm
The lawyer, who was working for Clinton, showed up with NO information. It was a big nothing burger. Then they talked about adoption policies. Then she went away.

What about this is wrong?

Hillary Catfish using the same "Russian prostitutes peed on Obama's bed for Trump" agency that Shylock believe in, tried to push some other fake bullshit. Trump Jr wasn't having any of that and ignored her. So what?
Permalink Pestular Croaker 
July 11th, 2017 4:22pm
"The June 3, 2016, email sent to Donald Trump Jr. could hardly have been more explicit: One of his father’s former Russian business partners had been contacted by a senior Russian government official and was offering to provide the Trump campaign with dirt on Hillary Clinton.

The documents “would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” read the email, written by a trusted intermediary, who added, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”"

Wow, this is like an opening from a Le Carre novel.
Permalink Yoda 
July 11th, 2017 4:22pm
A rational and reasonable response to this story is to note it is just more proof Hillary is a psychotic and diabolically manipulative schemer.
Permalink Pestular Croaker 
July 11th, 2017 4:23pm
Nice try bum. You *almost* earned yourself a quarter.
Permalink Yoda 
July 11th, 2017 4:24pm
> The documents “would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia"

Hillary and Bill's voluminous incriminating dealings with Russia are already well documented in books such as Clinton Cash, and the logs of the Lolita flights Bill took deep into Russian territory on multiple occasions for child sex and uranium dealings.
Permalink Pestular Croaker 
July 11th, 2017 4:24pm
Le Carre and Smiley for the win.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 11th, 2017 4:25pm
> One: how can they know they're being manipulated by Russian government?

That is something any president will have to judge anyway.

> Knowingly putting yourself in such position could be seen as treason.

What position?
Trump has been less friendly for the Russians than during his campaign.

> Second: how were they going to pay for the information?

It was offered for free?
The Russians guessed that Trump would be the least of the evils, but that doesn't make Trump a traitor.

The real interests of the US with regard to Russia are not defined by the Democratic Party, but they pretend that going against their grand strategy constitutes treason.

That is too pretentious in my eyes.

Trump is a very distasteful man, a nasty person with a mob attitude, and a psychopath, but I don't see him as a traitor.
Permalink Lotti Fuehrscheim 
July 11th, 2017 4:31pm
On the other hand, neoliberal politicians like Obama or Clinton are also heavily indebted to foreign interests, it's just that this dependency is more subtle. They need the support of big capital, international elites like Soros, Branson, etc.

This dependency is more "fuzzy" and (usually) not illegal, but as much detrimental to the sovereignty of the countries they represent, and the well-being of ordinary people who voted for them, as Trump's dependency on Russia.
Permalink Yoda 
July 11th, 2017 4:32pm
"It was offered for free?"

You're so naive.
Permalink Yoda 
July 11th, 2017 4:33pm
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/15950590/donald-trump-jr-new-york-times-illegal

This is the money quote:

"The statute in question is 52 USC 30121, 36 USC 510 — the law governing foreign contributions to US campaigns. There are two key passages that apply here. This is the first:

    A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

The crucial phrase here is “other thing of value,” legal experts tell me. It means that the law extends beyond just cash donations. Foreigners are also banned from providing other kinds of contributions that would be the functional equivalent of a campaign donation, just provided in the form of services rather than goods. Like, say, damaging information the Russian government collected about Hillary Clinton."
Permalink Shylock 
July 11th, 2017 4:34pm
Technically, treason in the US is strictly defined and hard to prove. They'll probably lock up the Trumps on something other than treason.

But on an emotional level, taking information from the Russians about your opponent is definitely treasonous.
Permalink Shylock 
July 11th, 2017 4:36pm
>  “other thing of value,”

like a prestigious foreign state visit, calls of support from foreign leaders.

Don't you see what a bottomless pit that kind of lawyery will lead to, and how arbitrary it can be applied?
Permalink Lotti Fuehrscheim 
July 11th, 2017 4:38pm
What Lottie said is true. Hillary got all the verbal support of all the liberal leaders and politicians from Germany to France. To me it is political interference for sure.
Permalink WorldRoverski 
July 11th, 2017 4:41pm
I'm sure foreign private citizens donate money anonymously to Hillary via 3rd party fund raising.
Permalink WorldRoverski 
July 11th, 2017 4:42pm
It is too small to figure out like a few hundred buck donations from German, French, Italian, Dutch, and so on.
Permalink WorldRoverski 
July 11th, 2017 4:43pm
And how many H1Bs were asked to donate money to Hillary? Isn't that also illegal?
Permalink WorldRoverski 
July 11th, 2017 4:43pm
>Don't you see what a bottomless pit that kind of lawyery will lead to, and how arbitrary it can be applied?

That is the law.
Permalink Shylock 
July 11th, 2017 4:55pm
> That is the law.

Evidently it is broken permanently, which makes it a lame law.
Permalink Lotti Fuehrscheim 
July 11th, 2017 4:59pm
US president tried to influence the Brexit referendum in Britain.
Permalink Yoda 
July 11th, 2017 5:23pm
Oh, we have been guilty of what Russia has done to us innumerable times. FFS we've invaded Russia twice.

We made sure that drunk Yeltsin was President.

We don't like to eat our own cooking.
Permalink Shylock 
July 11th, 2017 5:39pm
So you democrats look stupid and hypocrite from the outside.

Your minority voters of 23% were just short of the Republican minority voters of 23% and now you cry: boohoo, he cheated!

And you cry: our minority was larger than their minority!

Russia's win is not that Trump won, but that you are fighting amongst yourselves.
Permalink Lotti Fuehrscheim 
July 11th, 2017 6:02pm
Correct.  Either way, Russia wins.

Unless Trump goes back on all his agreements, as he tends to do.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 11th, 2017 6:08pm
He already did, and I don't think the Russians had many illusions in that respect.

But now you have a lame president who needs all his attention fighting at home.
Permalink Lotti Fuehrscheim 
July 11th, 2017 6:15pm
And Russians have a free hand. At least Merkel is not crazy.
Permalink Yoda 
July 11th, 2017 6:16pm
Ah, well, even if Trump doesn't give "permission" for Putin to invade Ukraine, at least Trump and America are now in such a tizzie Putin may have a free hand anyway.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 11th, 2017 6:17pm
>So you democrats look stupid and hypocrite from the outside.

Interfering with other countries is a bipartisan tradition here. Sometimes with tragic consequences. Iran 1953. Afghanistan. Guatemala.

But yes, Putin's gamble worked beautifully. He's ended America's global leadership permanently. He's destroyed Nato. He recognized a decaying empire when he saw it.
Permalink Shylock 
July 11th, 2017 6:26pm
The DEMOCRATS look stupid from the outside?

Trump lied through his teeth!  Trump's campaign negotiated with the Russians to fix the American election.  These are not just accusations anymore, the evidence has come out.

And the Democrats look hypocritical?  You're delusional and prejudiced.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 11th, 2017 7:09pm
You know Lotti, I would never have taken you for one of these people:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/trumps-biggest-asset-fans-who-think-negative-news-is-fake.html

You sure you want to be lanzmen with Idiot and Ruseman?
Permalink Shylock 
July 11th, 2017 7:28pm
The only proof you present us all the time comes from the same people that assured us there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

And they don't present proof, but rather say, just believe us, we know.
Permalink Lotti Fuehrscheim 
July 12th, 2017 3:37am
"Technically, treason in the US is strictly defined and hard to prove. They'll probably lock up the Trumps on something other than treason."

https://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

USA and Russia are not at war, so there is no treason.

"But on an emotional level, taking information from the Russians about your opponent is definitely treasonous."

On an emotional level, you're still pissed that HRC lost.

And I share Lotti's distrust of US intelligence services.
Permalink Yoda 
July 12th, 2017 4:20am
The proof is Jr.'s confession. That email chain, which he stipulates is his, in which he admits he wanted to get information on Hillary from the Russians clearly states that he wants to collude with the Kremlin, is an admission of guilt.

Which laws he broke, that will be up to Mueller's team to decide. This confirms that the intelligence agencies, which certainly have fucked up in the past, were absolutely right this time.

Again, I just don't get the Idiot level of denseness from you too.
Permalink Shylock 
July 12th, 2017 6:58am
So he accepts information from Russians, so what?

You are blinded by humiliation and just vengeful. Like a confederate.
Permalink Lotti Fuehrscheim 
July 12th, 2017 7:16am
It is a violation of election law. Again:

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/15950590/donald-trump-jr-new-york-times-illegal

Just stating the facts. Any fact I get wrong, please let me know. Any relevant fact I'm leaving out, let me know. Otherwise, what the fuck is your problem? Why do you carry this fascist regime's water? I just don't get it.
Permalink Shylock 
July 12th, 2017 7:37am
Yes, and I am sure there are laws too that say politicians shouldn't lie.

We already established that that law is permanently violated by everybody.
Permalink Lotti Fuehrscheim 
July 12th, 2017 7:43am
I just never realized that you were another Trump jihadi Lotti. I would have thought you were too smart to fall into the Fox News demographic. TIL.

Next you'll be going whatabouthillary?
Permalink Shylock 
July 12th, 2017 7:49am
You know I am not, but you also don't know what you defeated elitists really look like at the moment.
Permalink Lotti Fuehrscheim 
July 12th, 2017 7:52am
Not even a quarter of the Americans voted for your candidate, yet you scream about being robbed of your rightful victory, while you shit on the rural Americans from your place feeding on the banksters.

Meanwhile Democrats and Trump are working together destroying the credibility of US politics.

Which may provide a useful time of reflection for the rest of the world.
Permalink Lotti Fuehrscheim 
July 12th, 2017 7:59am
We sound as pissed off as you would be if Geert Wilders had taken power through a defect in your election process.

Anyone who claims symmetry between the two parties these days is demonstrating that he's a twit. The Republicans are doing their best to kill about 200K Americans as I type. The Democrats are trying to save them. If that makes me shrill, if that makes me "elitist", then OK:

https://newrepublic.com/article/143570/trumpcare-will-kill-people-hard-accept
Permalink Shylock 
July 12th, 2017 8:27am
From the right wing National Review (Bill Buckley's old magazine):

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449376/donald-trump-jr-e-mails-proof-trump-campaign-attempted-collusion-russia

"Going further, at long last we can now put to bed the notion that the Russia investigation is little more than frivolous partisan harassment, and it casts in an entirely different light the president’s fury and frustration at its continued progress"
Permalink Shylock 
July 12th, 2017 8:30am
> We sound as pissed off as you would be if Geert Wilders had taken power through a defect in your election process.

Wilders has been part of the government in the past. That didn't kill us, but left him alone today as an unreliable partner, but otherwise he is free to collect his votes.

And it is not a 'defect in your election system', it is the intended design. The law, that you are ready to invoke when it suits you.
Permalink Lotti Fuehrscheim 
July 12th, 2017 9:03am
Wow, how unusual to be ditto-head lectured on liberalism by a guy from the Netherlands.

I'd expect to be ditto-head lectured on liberalism by a skin-head from Germany.  But not the Netherlands.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 12th, 2017 9:13am
Hey, pssst, Hubble, the Russians hacked your voting machines!
Permalink Lotti Fuehrscheim 
July 12th, 2017 9:24am
>And it is not a 'defect in your election system', it is the intended design.

The EC is indeed a defect in our electoral system. The authors of the 12th Amendment, which was written when they didn't like the results of the 1800 election and changed the rules, recognized that it didn't work as designed. They left it in because the Virginians who wrote the amendment were concerned about the future of chattel slavery if they took it out.

Since then it's functioned as affirmative action for rural white trash. I'd say that that's a defect.

If you want to criticize Democrats for not pushing to get rid of it finally after the 2000 debacle, I'd say you have a fair point. There's no way it would have succeeded, but the effort should have been made.

>The law, that you are ready to invoke when it suits you.

Bullshit. In 2004, the one time the Republicans actually won the popular vote since 1988, they had to steal Ohio to get the EC votes necessary to win. Otherwise, Kerry would have won the EC despite losing the popular by the same margin Trump did this year. I sucked it up because Bush deserved to win the election.
Permalink Shylock 
July 12th, 2017 9:28am
I know, I was the one that told YOU.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 12th, 2017 9:28am
>Wow, how unusual to be ditto-head lectured on liberalism by a guy from the Netherlands.

It goes to show you, stupid asshole old white men are the same wherever you go.
Permalink Shylock 
July 12th, 2017 9:29am
"We already established that that law is permanently violated by everybody."

Actually no. The phrase "any other thing of value" appears in hundreds of laws and has never been used to cover "things that might be learned in a potential conversation which may or may not be true, claimed without evidence".

Maybe I'm wrong though and you'll pull up some case law where "any other thing of value" refers to speech.
Permalink Pestular Croaker 
July 12th, 2017 9:35am
Here's a thing of value.

A $2 million donation to the Clinton Foundation.

Here's another thing of value.

A $750,000 fee paid to Bill Clinton for delivering a speech to an empty room.

Here's another thing of value.

A flight on a private plane to discuss uranium deals in Siberia.
Permalink Pestular Croaker 
July 12th, 2017 9:36am
Services sometimes can apply though.

Here's some services of value.

A blow job and anal rimming given on a private plane from a 14 yr old sex slave owned by the owner of the plane.

The paid assassination of Seth Rich.
Permalink Pestular Croaker 
July 12th, 2017 9:38am
Now see what you've done, Lotti.  You broke PC.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 12th, 2017 9:39am
I spent a lot of time going through case law that cites laws using that phrase and couldn't find any case like this. But Shylock says he knows of such cases, so if he could give the case info so we can look it up it would be helpful.
Permalink Pestular Croaker 
July 12th, 2017 10:18am
I mean here's a legal dictionary explaining the term showing that what Shylock is claiming is complete bullshit.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/anything-of-value/

But Shylock says no he knows more, he's a lawyer or something apparently and feels uslegal.com has bad info. Shylock should contact them and offer his consulting services to fix their site.

Anything of Value Law and Legal Definition
Anything of value refers to any goods that have a certain utility to the recipient that is real and that is ordinarily not given away free but is purchased.

The following is an example of a state law on anything of value:

Anything of value includes the following:

a. a pecuniary item, including money, or a bank bill or note;

b. a promissory note, bill of exchange, order, draft, warrant, check, or bond given for the payment of money;

c. a contract, agreement, promise, or other obligation for an advance, conveyance, forgiveness of indebtedness, deposit, distribution, loan, payment, gift, pledge, or transfer of money;

d. a stock, bond, note, or other investment interest in an entity;

e. a receipt given for the payment of money or other property;

f. a right in action;

g. a gift, tangible good, chattel, or an interest in a gift, tangible good, or chattel;

h. loan or forgiveness of indebtedness;

i. a work of art, antique, or collectible;

j. an automobile or other means of personal transportation;

k . real property or an interest in real property, including title to realty; a fee simple or partial interest, present or future, contingent or vested, within realty; a leasehold interest; or other beneficial interest in realty;

l. a rebate or discount in the price of anything of value unless the rebate or discount is made in the ordinary course of business to a member of the public without regard to that person's status as a legislator;

m. a promise or offer of employment; or

n. any other thing of value that is pecuniary or compensatory in value to a person, or the primary significance of which is economic gain.

Anything of value does not include:

a. a campaign contribution properly received and reported, if reportable;

b. compensation, food, beverages, entertainment, transportation, lodging, or other goods or services extended to a legislator by the legislator's private employer or by a person other than a legislative agent or employer;

c. a usual and customary commercial loan made in the ordinary course of business, without regard to the recipient's status as a legislator, and by a person or institution authorized by law to engage in the business of making loans;

d. informational or promotional items;

e. educational items;

f. food and beverages consumed on the premises;

g. the cost of attendance or participation, and of food and beverages consumed, at events;

h. gifts from a person related by blood or marriage or a member of the legislator's household;

i. a gift that is not used and no later than thirty (30) days after receipt, is returned to the donor;

j. the cost, paid, reimbursed, raised, or obtained by the Legislative Research Commission, for attendance or participation, and for food and beverages consumed at, and funds, goods, and services provided for conducting events sponsored or coordinated by multistate or national organizations of, or including, state governments, state legislatures, or state legislators if the attendance and expenditures by the legislator are approved in advance by the Legislative Research Commission;

k. the cost of attendance or participation provided by the sponsoring entity, of lodging, and of food and beverages consumed, at events sponsored by or in conjunction with a civic, charitable, governmental, trade association, or community organization if the event is held within the state;

l. a gift or gifts from one member of the General Assembly to another member of the General Assembly;

m. anything for which the recipient pays or gives full value; or

n. any service spontaneously extended to a legislator in an emergency situation. [KRS § 6.611]
Permalink Pestular Croaker 
July 12th, 2017 10:20am
Oh, that deserves $0.25.
Permalink Yoda 
July 12th, 2017 10:24am
@Shylock

I suppose that, given the facts disclosed by Trump Jr, it can be proven that someone broke the law. I don't think it's enough to impeach Trump Sr ("Fredo" says the Padre didn't know anything about his meeting with the Russian friends), and anyway Russia is not at war with the USA, so there can be no treason charges.

But... Clinton received donations to Clinton Foundation from foreign powers. It is obvious that those donations helped her in her political career, and thus indirectly in her campaign to become POTUS. So *morally* and *ethically* she is shady as well.

I think the great thing about Trump is that he's the focusing point of all the corruption of the US political system. He's got it all.
Permalink Yoda 
July 12th, 2017 10:34am
Yes, Hillary was far from perfect, but as everyone reminds me, she lost the election.

Anyways, here's a link from an actual election lawyer:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/interview-with-robert-bauer-about-donald-trump-jr-s-emails.html

It's fairly nuanced and detailed.
Permalink Shylock 
July 12th, 2017 10:46am
I was about to put that same link up Yoda. It's clear, even though it's not yet provable in court, that Daddy knew what was going on.
Permalink Shylock 
July 12th, 2017 10:48am
Given McCain's recent statements, if Trump could ever hope about convincing the GOP elites to himself, he lost that chance.
Permalink Yoda 
July 12th, 2017 11:02am

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: July, 2017 Other topics: July, 2017 Recent topics Recent topics